2016 (12) TMI 918 - AT - Central Excise

Cement - clandestine removal - Held that - We find that there are enough corroborative evidences on record sustaining the charges of clandestine removal against the appellants. These corroborative evidences can be cited as follows - (i)Cash Books resumed; (ii)Parallel invoices resumed; (iii)Weighment slips resumed; (iv)Registers of parties resumed. We find that findings given in the impugned order are based on clear cut evidences and, therefore, there is no scope of interference with the findings given in the impugned order - impugned order upheld. Appeal dismissed - demand sustained - decided against appellant-assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of cement without payment of duty.
2. Validity of evidence supporting the clandestine removal.
3. Functionality of M/s Durga Cement (P) Ltd. during the period in question.
4. Legitimacy of parallel invoices and cash books.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Cement Without Payment of Duty:
The appellants, M/s Chandra Cement Ltd. and its Director, were accused of evading central excise duty amounting to ?52,96,870/-. The Commissioner’s order confirmed this demand along with interest and penalties. The central issue was whether the appellants had cleared cement without paying the required duty.

2. Validity of Evidence Supporting the Clandestine Removal:
The appellants argued that the evidence used against them, including statements and documents, was insufficient and lacked corroboration. They contended that the registers and cash books in question were personal accounts of the Director, Shri Rajendra Prasad Goyal, and not official records of the company. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence, including cash books, parallel invoices, weighment slips, and party registers, sufficiently supported the charges of clandestine removal. The Tribunal noted that mere arguments without substantive proof did not negate the evidence presented by the Department.

3. Functionality of M/s Durga Cement (P) Ltd. During the Period in Question:
The appellants claimed that M/s Durga Cement (P) Ltd. was operational during the period in question, supported by sales tax assessments from 1997-1999. However, the Department’s findings during their visit on 30/11/1999 indicated that the factory was non-functional, with disconnected electricity, no DG set, rusty machines, and no raw materials or finished goods. The Tribunal upheld the Department’s findings, dismissing the appellants' claims as unsubstantial.

4. Legitimacy of Parallel Invoices and Cash Books:
The appellants contended that the parallel invoices and cash books were mistakenly documented by a chowkidar and were not intended for evasion of duty. Shri Rajendra Goyal, in his voluntary statement, admitted that the invoices were maintained as parallel for clearance of cement without payment of duty. The Tribunal found this admission, along with other corroborative evidence, sufficient to uphold the charges. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellants' argument that the Department failed to investigate customers and transporters, stating that the existing evidence was adequate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the findings in the impugned order were based on clear evidence and upheld the Commissioner’s order. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order, sustaining the demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants. Both appeals were dismissed.

Judgment:
The appeals were dismissed, and the Commissioner’s order was sustained in its entirety. The Tribunal found the evidence against the appellants to be robust and comprehensive, justifying the penalties and demand for unpaid duty.

← Previous Next →